No Welsh Trains to Manchester Airport (Now approved until December 2017)

[LNW-GW Joint]

I agree. The A55/M56 also makes it very quick to travel from most places on the N Wales coast direct to M/c Airport by car, e.g. approximately 75 minutes to Llandudno Junction.
There have been ideas for a link from the Mid Cheshire line to the airport to facilitate direct Chester-M/c Airport trains, but this would be expensive and destroy attractive green belt near Ashley. Unfortunately, this alignment is also proposed for the white elephant of a direct HS2 route into M/c.

It's easy enough to reach the Airport from Chester/North Wales via Crewe on the Northern semi-fast.
It avoids the bedlam of changing at Oxford Road/Piccadilly.

It's tantalising how the end of the 2nd runway at Ringway almost reaches Mobberley station.
This whole area is currently being trashed by the new A556 alignment and its link roads, a new rail route would be no more destructive.

 

[Greybeard33]

I agree. The A55/M56 also makes it very quick to travel from most places on the N Wales coast direct to M/c Airport by car, e.g. approximately 75 minutes to Llandudno Junction.

There have been ideas for a link from the Mid Cheshire line to the airport to facilitate direct Chester-M/c Airport trains, but this would be expensive and destroy attractive green belt near Ashley. Unfortunately, this alignment is also proposed for the white elephant of a direct HS2 route into M/c.

It's tantalising how the end of the 2nd runway at Ringway almost reaches Mobberley station.
This whole area is currently being trashed by the new A556 alignment and its link roads, a new rail route would be no more destructive.

And the World Logistics Hub is comprehensively trashing a good chunk of the remaining countryside the western rail link would pass through.

I enjoy walks in the Bollin Valley and green belt around Ashley, but the M56 is a much worse scar on the landscape (not to mention the air pollution and incessant noise) than the existing Mid-Cheshire rail line. The effects of the western link and HS2 would likewise be minor in comparison to the "destruction" wreaked by the motorway and the airport itself.

 

[Holly]

... It's tantalising how the end of the 2nd runway at Ringway almost reaches Mobberley station.
This whole area is currently being trashed by the new A556 alignment and its link roads, a new rail route would be no more destructive.

Cut and cover down the length of the (side of the) runway would be the way to put in rail without interfering with the aircraft operations.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Cut and cover down the length of the (side of the) runway would be the way to put in rail without interfering with the aircraft operations.

I would like to see in print, a response from those running Manchester Airport in response to that proposal.

 

[northwichcat]

I enjoy walks in the Bollin Valley and green belt around Ashley, but the M56 is a much worse scar on the landscape (not to mention the air pollution and incessant noise) than the existing Mid-Cheshire rail line. The effects of the western link and HS2 would likewise be minor in comparison to the "destruction" wreaked by the motorway and the airport itself.

Surely an rail line will produce less noise pollution than the Airport produces, even if you have big heavy freight trains powered by diesel locos.

 

[mwmbwls]

I would like to see in print, a response from those running Manchester Airport in response to that proposal.

http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansbl...RUA-response-to-MIA-Sustainable-Devt-Plan.pdf

Oh no you wouldn't but I suspect you already knew that

 

[geoffk]

If there are going to be no services from the Airport that terminate at Piccadilly, where will the semi-fast from Crewe via the Airport end up going to?

Another option is to transfer the Airport - Crewe leg to London Midland and add it to their Euston semi-fast, giving an airport link from Stoke (or whatever service they operate via Stoke).

 

[northwichcat]

Another option is to transfer the Airport - Crewe leg to London Midland and add it to their Euston semi-fast, giving an airport link from Stoke (or whatever service they operate via Stoke).

The option of a Stoke-Manchester Airport EMU was looked at in the West Coast RUS but was dismissed as using a larger train on Derby-Crewe services and extending them to the Airport was deemed to have a better business case.

 

[geoffk]

The option of a Stoke-Manchester Airport EMU was looked at in the West Coast RUS but was dismissed as using a larger train on Derby-Crewe services and extending them to the Airport was deemed to have a better business case.

A Derby - Crewe - Airport service would be a good alternative, but not with a 153 of course! Should that be instead of, or in addition to, the Northern service?

 

[northwichcat]

A Derby - Crewe - Airport service would be a good alternative, but not with a 153 of course! Should that be instead of, or in addition to, the Northern service?

The thinking was an additional Crewe-Airport and extra capacity on an existing Crewe-Stoke-Derby was a better option than an additional Crewe-Stoke when one of the current Crewe-Stoke services is sometimes operated by a 1 car train.

 

[PHILIPE]

A Derby - Crewe - Airport service would be a good alternative, but not with a 153 of course! Should that be instead of, or in addition to, the Northern service?

Discussion on this has just cropped up on another thread re London Midland not serving Manchester. I posted that Central had operated a service from Derby via Crewe to the Airport and a subsequent post reported that it was very lightly used. People along this route would probably use Birmingham or East Midlands Airports.

 

[Class 170101]

Discussion on this has just cropped up on another thread re London Midland not serving Manchester. I posted that Central had operated a service from Derby via Crewe to the Airport and a subsequent post reported that it was very lightly used. People along this route would probably use Birmingham or East Midlands Airports.

I think that depends on what is on offer at the destination. If Manchester Airport was to get more International flights across the Atlantic particularly to Brazil, Russia, India and China this might change and increase the usage.

 

[fowler9]

I think that depends on what is on offer at the destination. If Manchester Airport was to get more International flights across the Atlantic particularly to Brazil, Russia, India and China this might change and increase the usage.

I'll be honest I can't see Manchester getting any flights across the Atlantic to Russia, India or China.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansbl...RUA-response-to-MIA-Sustainable-Devt-Plan.pdf

Oh no you wouldn't but I suspect you already knew that

Indeed I did, but was in "Devil's Advocate" mood when I made my posting..

 

[northwichcat]

Discussion on this has just cropped up on another thread re London Midland not serving Manchester. I posted that Central had operated a service from Derby via Crewe to the Airport and a subsequent post reported that it was very lightly used. People along this route would probably use Birmingham or East Midlands Airports.

It was axed 15 years ago and was actually a Skegness to Airport service where puctuality was poor and the service was sometimes truncated at Crewe due to late running.

Anyone who uses the argument that usage used to be poor needs to remember that was prior to the huge boom in rail usage in the mid 00s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'll be honest I can't see Manchester getting any flights across the Atlantic to Russia, India or China.

Indeed. I think the Manchester to Moscow route is useful as it is without going via America.

 

[Class 170101]

I'll be honest I can't see Manchester getting any flights across the Atlantic to Russia, India or China.

smart ass

 

[edwin_m]

I'll be honest I can't see Manchester getting any flights across the Atlantic to Russia, India or China.

Maybe Columbus was onto something after all?

 

[Greybeard33]

A Derby - Crewe - Airport service would be a good alternative, but not with a 153 of course! Should that be instead of, or in addition to, the Northern service?

The thinking was an additional Crewe-Airport and extra capacity on an existing Crewe-Stoke-Derby was a better option than an additional Crewe-Stoke when one of the current Crewe-Stoke services is sometimes operated by a 1 car train.

This was considered in the 2011 WCML RUS as Gap RL3, lack of direct services between Manchester Aiport and towns in the Potteries. This concluded "further work required", suggesting:

Two stage approach:
Stage one: lengthen six of the busiest services between Derby and Crewe using two additional vehicles.
Stage two: considers extending this service on to Manchester Airport.
Stage one provides a medium value for money business case to length six of the busiest services using two vehicles. This option is recommended for implementation by 2018 or as soon as rolling stock becomes available. Stage two provides a low value for money business case for the extension of services on to Manchester Airport and cannot be recommended. It is recommended that this option be developed further as a package under option JT4.2 (North West Package), as it replaces some of the lost connectivity to passengers on the Stoke-on-Trent corridor.

The "North West Package" referenced was a complex set of interrelated changes, involving rerouting XC Birmingham-Manchester services via Crewe instead of Stoke and providing a new hourly LM service between Birmingham and Manchester via Stoke. As this package has not progressed, and the new Northern franchise Train Service Requirement only includes 1tph between Crewe and the Airport, I think we can assume that improved services to the Airport from Crewe have been kicked into the HS2 long grass. Even though the original 2010 Manchester Hub study listed as one of the potential benefits 2tph to the Airport from Crewe, with one starting from Stoke.

 

[northwichcat]

This was considered in the 2011 WCML RUS as Gap RL3, lack of direct services between Manchester Aiport and towns in the Potteries. This concluded "further work required", suggesting:

The "North West Package" referenced was a complex set of interrelated changes, involving rerouting XC Birmingham-Manchester services via Crewe instead of Stoke and providing a new hourly LM service between Birmingham and Manchester via Stoke. As this package has not progressed, and the new Northern franchise Train Service Requirement only includes 1tph between Crewe and the Airport, I think we can assume that improved services to the Airport from Crewe have been kicked into the HS2 long grass. Even though the original 2010 Manchester Hub study listed as one of the potential benefits 2tph to the Airport from Crewe, with one starting from Stoke.

I seem to recall a more recent Midlands or East Midlands study saying while single car trains are overcrowded on Crewe-Derby services the line doesn't bring in enough revenue to justify 2 car Sprinters on all services. That might mean an extension which brings in extra passengers is the only way of getting the additional revenue needed to strengthen the services.

 

[Greybeard33]

I seem to recall a more recent Midlands or East Midlands study saying while single car trains are overcrowded on Crewe-Derby services the line doesn't bring in enough revenue to justify 2 car Sprinters on all services. That might mean an extension which brings in extra passengers is the only way of getting the additional revenue needed to strengthen the services.

Two additional diagrams would be needed to extend the Derby service from Crewe to the Airport (approx. 45 minutes each way). Unless the additional farebox revenue exceeded the additional operating costs of the two units and crews, the losses would be even worse!

If EMT keeps the 153s past 2020, the reduced capacity due to the accessible toilet will worsen the overcrowding. A 2-car train might stimulate demand and make on-board ticket checks feasible, so generating more revenue on the existing route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I believe the fourth platform was supposed to allow 10tph from the Airport to Piccadilly. The 10 will be 2 North TPE, 1 Scotland, 1 Cleethorpes, 1 Liverpool via CLC, 1 Liverpool via Chat Moss, 1 Cumbria, 1 Blackpool, 1 Bradford and 1 Blackburn - all through services at Picc.

Having now delved into the TSR tables on the DfT's Northern Franchise Agreement site, I was surprised to find that Northern's required service level from the Airport to Piccadilly actually falls in Dec 2017, from the initial 5tph (same as now plus the remapped TPE Blackpool service) to only 4tph. Then from Dec 2019 it goes back to 5tph, rather than the 6tph I assumed above.

From Dec 2017, the two EMU stoppers to Picc and the Southport DMU service are all withdrawn (it appears the Southport service instead starts from Hebden Bridge via Victoria). The Liverpool via Chat Moss semi-fast EMU is diverted via the CLC and becomes a Northern Connect DMU. The Victoria to Liverpool via Chat Moss EMU stopper starts from the Airport instead (or maybe from Crewe via the Airport). The new Northern Connect DMU service to Barrow/Windermere via Chat Moss and Wigan North Western is inaugurated, with the TPE Glasgow/Edinburghs going back to the Bolton route. Only the ex-TPE Northern Connect Blackpool via Bolton continues as now (but will become EMU assuming the wires are up). One of the Northern Connects (most likely the Blackpool EMU?) will have to be all stations to Piccadilly, in addition to the Liverpool stopper.

From Dec 2019, the additional Airport service is the Northern Connect DMU to Bradford via the Ordsall Chord (this is required to stop at Deansgate).

There is no DfT requirement for the Blackburn via Todmorden Curve service to start from the Airport, so this must be an Arriva proposal that is over and above the agreed requirements. On the other hand, maybe this might mean that the last Airport path is still "up for grabs", with an opportunity for the next Wales and Borders franchisee to bid for it?!

 

[northwichcat]

Someone pointed out to me that the franchise agreement has the 4th Hazel Grove starting in December 17 (not Dec 19) as is likely to be an EMU from Bolton so as it's pre-Ordsall Chord it'll likely take the path which is currently used by Southport-Airport and not free up a path for another Airport service.

 

[Greybeard33]

Someone pointed out to me that the franchise agreement has the 4th Hazel Grove starting in December 17 (not Dec 19) as is likely to be an EMU from Bolton so as it's pre-Ordsall Chord it'll likely take the path which is currently used by Southport-Airport and not free up a path for another Airport service.

According to the Hendy Enhancements Delivery Plan Update, the Ordsall Chord itself (Package A) is still scheduled for Entry Into Service by Dec 2017. However, Oxford Road remodelling and Piccadilly Platforms 15 & 16 (Package C) are scheduled for the 2018-20 timeframe, subject to TWAO approval. I guess there might well be some temporary capacity restrictions through Oxford Road during reconstruction, e.g. the bay platform, currently used by the CLC stoppers, might be lost at an early stage.

However, if we assume that the N Wales service is to be diverted to Victoria, there will only be 15 paths used, including 2 freight, through Castlefield Junction/Deansgate after allowing for all the services required in the Northern Dec 2019 TSR (which presumably assumes all the Hub works will be complete). The 15 will comprise 4tph from the CLC line (Liverpool-Norwich, -Airport & 2tph stoppers), 2tph from the Chat Moss line (Barrow/Windermere-Airport & Liverpool-Airport stopper), 4tph from the Bolton line (Glasgow/Edinburgh-Airport, Blackpool-Airport, 2 Hazel Grove) and 3tph from the Ordsall Chord (2 TPE Leeds-Airport, 1 Bradford-Airport), plus 2tph Trafford Park freights. If the line capacity is really to be 16tph as promised, that leaves one path spare, which could go to the Airport.

 

[Viscount702]

Won't there be 4 on CLC. Liverpool-Norwich, Liverpool -Airport (Connect) and 2 stoppers the end destination for which is I think unclear.

 

[geoffk]

Four an hour on CLC surely - and now we hear a Blackburn - Todmorden - Airport service so that's four an hour on Ordsall chord.

 

[Greybeard33]

Four an hour on CLC surely - and now we hear a Blackburn - Todmorden - Airport service so that's four an hour on Ordsall chord.

OP corrected to add the second CLC stopper - thanks. But a sixth hourly Northern service from Piccadilly to the Airport (which could come round the Ordsall Chord from Blackburn) is definitely not in the Franchise Agreement TSR. The 5tph that are specified are from Blackpool via Bolton, Barrow/Windermere via Wigan, Liverpool via Warrington, Liverpool via Newton-le-Willows and Bradford Interchange via Victoria.

Of course it is possible that the Franchise Agreement could be amended. It is also possible that a 4th hourly service on the Ordsall Chord could instead be linked to one of the four hourly DMU services on the Stockport line (to Greenbank, Chester, New Mills Newtown and Buxton). These might also be candidates for linkage to the CLC stoppers, providing through services from Liverpool. I guess we might have to wait till next year to find out.

 

[northwichcat]

^ Note the word minimum appears on every table. 6tph to the Airport is permitted if resources exist to allow it but running 4tph is not.

 

[Greybeard33]

^ Note the word minimum appears on every table. 6tph to the Airport is permitted if resources exist to allow it but running 4tph is not.

But would Northern then have to bid against Wales and Borders for the spare path in a Sale of Rights? I wonder what the relative demand is for direct services to the Airport from Blackburn, Accrington and Burnley versus Chester and the N Wales coast?

 

[northwichcat]

But would Northern then have to bid against Wales and Borders for the spare path in a Sale of Rights? I wonder what the relative demand is for direct services to the Airport from Blackburn, Accrington and Burnley versus Chester and the N Wales coast?

But then a clockface pattern of 4tph between Victoria and the Airport could be an advantage for it to go in Northern's favour?

 

[notlob.divad]

The Liverpool via Chat Moss semi-fast EMU is diverted via the CLC and becomes a Northern Connect DMU. The Victoria to Liverpool via Chat Moss EMU stopper starts from the Airport instead (or maybe from Crewe via the Airport). The new Northern Connect DMU service to Barrow/Windermere via Chat Moss and Wigan North Western is inaugurated, with the TPE Glasgow/Edinburghs going back to the Bolton route. Only the ex-TPE Northern Connect Blackpool via Bolton continues as now (but will become EMU assuming the wires are up). One of the Northern Connects (most likely the Blackpool EMU?) will have to be all stations to Piccadilly, in addition to the Liverpool stopper.

I don't quite follow the logic behind this. You seem to be diverting the Semi-Fast from the ChatMoss route to the CLC route which already has a Semi-fast to Piccadilly at least in the Norwich/Nottingham train. It would seem to me to make more sense to leave them as they are, with an EMU semi-fast running Chat Moss to the Airport and a DMU running semi-fast on the CLC. Sorry if I have miss-understood. Also to add that the Semi-Fast ChatMoss from Lpool would give NWales passengers a change option at NLW, which CLC semi-fast does not.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't quite follow the logic behind this. You seem to be diverting the Semi-Fast from the ChatMoss route to the CLC route which already has a Semi-fast to Piccadilly at least in the Norwich/Nottingham train. It would seem to me to make more sense to leave them as they are, with an EMU semi-fast running Chat Moss to the Airport and a DMU running semi-fast on the CLC. Sorry if I have miss-understood.

The Chat Moss semi-fast will likely be diverted to Victoria and become the Northern Connect service to Bradford, meaning the stopper will instead run to the Airport. Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester-Airport is required as a Northern Connect standard service and only one of the 3 Northern Connect's which DfT specified opposed to Arriva choosing (Cumbria and Blackpool being the others.)